If you overlook the explanation on why space is 3-dimensional, whatever he's saying sounds a bit like string theory.

Click to expand...

As long as one emphasizes 'a bit' in this case - as in 'a very very little bit' . Anyway I expect this thread will soon move to a new home. :m:

PS; To give one example of the BS nature of 'spaceparticles theory': Basic premise is that these space particles - of zero size, constitute and 'explain' space. Not reside in a per-existing space. So to start off talking about arranging said zero-sized space particles to form cubes or whatever, one immediately requires a per-existing 3-D space in which such particles are arranged with a spatial separation! A contradiction at basic level. And that's not getting into the problem that quantum behavior is nowhere hinted at. This 'theory' can explain or even accommodate say double-slit interference pattern? And on it goes.

PS; To give one example of the BS nature of 'spaceparticles theory': Basic premise is that these space particles - of zero size, constitute and 'explain' space. Not reside in a per-existing space. So to start off talking about arranging said zero-sized space particles to form cubes or whatever, one immediately requires a per-existing 3-D space in which such particles are arranged with a spatial separation! A contradiction at basic level. And that's not getting into the problem that quantum behavior is nowhere hinted at. This 'theory' can explain or even accommodate say double-slit interference pattern? And on it goes.

Click to expand...

That's why I said to overlook it.
Even if this buffoon manages to devise an experiment, we have no idea what his theory means so we can't determine if the experiment verifies his theory.

Thanks. I'd like to claim originality but in truth it's just a slight adaptation of someone else's wit.

Even if this buffoon manages to devise an experiment, we have no idea what his theory means so we can't determine if the experiment verifies his theory.

Click to expand...

Yep. The one good thing about his 'treatise' is it's extreme brevity. We are mercifully spared wading through reams of something approximating to an actual theory with attendant math of some extent at least.